rednoW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1510
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 07, 2015, 10:22:08 PM |
|
Fuck that, I think that's mostly RE'd from Claymore's. Qubit and Quark are mine.
So will we see the source code soon?
|
|
|
|
jch9678
|
|
May 07, 2015, 11:21:55 PM |
|
how you do it ? wich settings you use ? stock kernel or you write your own one ? Wrote my own, of course. if quoted speed is still true then i doubt it's your bin, or you chose wrong settings which i cannot imagine as well maybe 4th pass ? Hm, maybe it's not, then. What's their speed? Odd that less than a week after someone gets my version, this happens... 280x qubit - 12.5 Mh / S Quark - 12.3 Mh / S Doesn't work with standard sgminer however
|
BTC: 15GqpmqNNJ1REWrDWTfymh7moos1sEvz7A
|
|
|
smolen
|
|
May 08, 2015, 12:44:59 AM |
|
Dammit, just realized - if he's distributing it, some jackass like Luke-Jr is gonna find out and demand the source. The host code will likely be enough to give away a major trick to getting Quark faster... shit. The OpenCL should be safe, it's input, not a derived work.
Hmm... $ strings ./quarkcoinTahitigw64l4ku0.bin |less |grep -i opencl __OpenCL_compile_options __OpenCL_0_global __OpenCL_search_metadata __OpenCL_search_kernel __OpenCL_search_header __OpenCL_search1_metadata __OpenCL_search1_kernel __OpenCL_search1_header __OpenCL_search2_metadata __OpenCL_search2_kernel __OpenCL_search2_header __OpenCL_search3_metadata __OpenCL_search3_kernel __OpenCL_search3_header __OpenCL_search4_metadata __OpenCL_search4_kernel __OpenCL_search4_header __OpenCL_search5_metadata __OpenCL_search5_kernel __OpenCL_search5_header __OpenCL_search6_metadata __OpenCL_search6_kernel __OpenCL_search6_header __OpenCL_search7_metadata __OpenCL_search7_kernel __OpenCL_search7_header __OpenCL_search8_metadata __OpenCL_search8_kernel __OpenCL_search8_header -I "." -I "./kernel" -I "." -D WORKSIZE=64 -D BITALIGN -I "/usr/local/bin" -D SPH_COMPACT_BLAKE_64=0 -D SPH_LUFFA_PARALLEL=0 -D SPH_KECCAK_UNROLL=0 -save-temps@(#) OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (1642.5). Driver version: 1642.5 (VM) ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search1_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search1_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search2_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search2_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search3_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search3_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search4_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search4_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search5_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search5_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search6_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search6_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search7_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search7_kernel ;ARGSTART:__OpenCL_search8_kernel ;ARGEND:__OpenCL_search8_kernel
|
Of course I gave you bad advice. Good one is way out of your price range.
|
|
|
smolen
|
|
May 08, 2015, 01:14:27 AM |
|
Nope, officially not my shit, or modified. Mine has 12 kernels, as-is, but SHOULD be 9 or so after cleanups.
Interesting, is GPL applicable here? SPH_LUFFA_PARALLEL hints that this kernel is derived work.
|
Of course I gave you bad advice. Good one is way out of your price range.
|
|
|
chup
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 736
Merit: 262
Me, Myself & I
|
|
May 08, 2015, 07:05:15 AM |
|
Nope, officially not my shit, or modified. Mine has 12 kernels, as-is, but SHOULD be 9 or so after cleanups.
Interesting, is GPL applicable here? SPH_LUFFA_PARALLEL hints that this kernel is derived work. It is not, since his (maybe derivative) work is not published. He can sell, distribute, but not publish derivative works to comply to GPL...
|
|
|
|
chup
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 736
Merit: 262
Me, Myself & I
|
|
May 08, 2015, 08:12:49 AM |
|
Interesting, is GPL applicable here? SPH_LUFFA_PARALLEL hints that this kernel is derived work.
It is not, since his (maybe derivative) work is not published. He can sell, distribute, but not publish derivative works to comply to GPL... If he distributes it to someone who wants the source, then he has to give it - assuming he has used ANY GPL'd code in his kernel, the entire kernel has now been infected. No, 100% positive that obligation for announcing the source code comes only if one publishes derivative work. Distribution comes at ask of end user, so no obligations afterwards even if the end user was paying for it. At this case, he is distributing not only kernels, but also variant of sgminer and that's the reason of not publishing the work, but distributing. He knows he is on a safe side.
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
May 08, 2015, 08:32:42 AM |
|
Hmm... $ strings ./quarkcoinTahitigw64l4ku0.bin |less |grep -i opencl readelf -aW kinda nicer.
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
May 08, 2015, 11:14:04 AM |
|
I've released my lyra2re miner sources, see my signature.
|
|
|
|
MaxDZ8
|
|
May 08, 2015, 05:32:58 PM |
|
Interesting, is GPL applicable here? SPH_LUFFA_PARALLEL hints that this kernel is derived work.
It is not, since his (maybe derivative) work is not published. He can sell, distribute, but not publish derivative works to comply to GPL... If he distributes it to someone who wants the source, then he has to give it - assuming he has used ANY GPL'd code in his kernel, the entire kernel has now been infected. No, 100% positive that obligation for announcing the source code comes only if one publishes derivative work. Distribution comes at ask of end user, so no obligations afterwards even if the end user was paying for it. At this case, he is distributing not only kernels, but also variant of sgminer and that's the reason of not publishing the work, but distributing. He knows he is on a safe side. I read this a few times and I cannot make any sense of it.
|
|
|
|
chup
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 736
Merit: 262
Me, Myself & I
|
|
May 08, 2015, 08:33:26 PM |
|
No, 100% positive that obligation for announcing the source code comes only if one publishes derivative work. Distribution comes at ask of end user, so no obligations afterwards even if the end user was paying for it. At this case, he is distributing not only kernels, but also variant of sgminer and that's the reason of not publishing the work, but distributing. He knows he is on a safe side.
I read this a few times and I cannot make any sense of it. Maybe I used wrong term "distribute", meaning direct (peer to peer; private channel) transfer. There is no GPL rule that can prohibit something that can not be prohibited. If the end user is willed to use improved binaries without source code, there is no power prohibiting that. In fact, I believe that GPL is not meant to prohibit anything, but to make better environment and conditions for free software. You are free to use GPL licensed software for You in any way You like. You can change it before. And someone can help You changing it. Here is part of section 2 (Basic permissions) of GPL terms and conditions: "You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you." I said nothing about persons leaking after. If they want to publish GPL licensed derivative work, they have to find source code before. If "the leakage" is through private channels,... there is no (legal) power to stop that also.
|
|
|
|
MaxDZ8
|
|
May 09, 2015, 06:40:30 AM |
|
So basically my understanding is that you have no clue what you're talking about and you're all in for propaganda. Nobody in business considers GPL a decent software license nowadays but the most extremist open source dudes. If you want free software, free is free. Free is MIT or ZLIB.
|
|
|
|
splootch
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
May 09, 2015, 07:12:51 AM |
|
You wanna sell it just put the link where we can buy or ask, you wanna give it just give it but damn keep the ally gpu miners up to date if you wanna beat these asic whale...we are very little and very few. if we not going to make the money, asic will. No point to remain silence fearing you gonna loose 0.50$ by a rising gpu harsh rate from new miner released .
|
|
|
|
chup
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 736
Merit: 262
Me, Myself & I
|
|
May 09, 2015, 07:13:27 AM |
|
So basically my understanding is that you have no clue what you're talking about and you're all in for propaganda. Nobody in business considers GPL a decent software license nowadays but the most extremist open source dudes. If you want free software, free is free. Free is MIT or ZLIB.
I have a clue that we are discussing here variant of sgminer and other GPL-licensed code. Suddenly someone that "has clue" jumps with "better" acronyms. You should go try convince Jeff Garzik that he has no clue choosing GPL-license for his work. If You can do that I will promote You in MASTER OF PROPAGANDA.
|
|
|
|
splootch
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
May 09, 2015, 07:19:35 AM |
|
The more power gpu miners community has the less profitable asic is and the higher those asic whales has to hold for the btc price to go up. RELEASE THE THING.
|
|
|
|
sammy007
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 09, 2015, 01:58:51 PM |
|
I noticed in this thread some links to optimized miner by author of "kachur" CryptoNight miner. This kachur shit was a malware/scamware miner exploiting plain stupid duplicate share vulnerability in node-cryptonote-pool. You warned, stay away from all blobs by this "dev". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg9262887#msg9262887
|
|
|
|
Oscilson
|
|
May 09, 2015, 06:59:10 PM |
|
I noticed in this thread some links to optimized miner by author of "kachur" CryptoNight miner. This kachur shit was a malware/scamware miner exploiting plain stupid duplicate share vulnerability in node-cryptonote-pool. You warned, stay away from all blobs by this "dev". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg9262887#msg9262887Do you also have a proof that this new miner submits duplicate shares?
|
|
|
|
BitmoreCoin
|
|
May 09, 2015, 07:15:55 PM |
|
I noticed in this thread some links to optimized miner by author of "kachur" CryptoNight miner. This kachur shit was a malware/scamware miner exploiting plain stupid duplicate share vulnerability in node-cryptonote-pool. You warned, stay away from all blobs by this "dev". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg9262887#msg9262887Do you also have a proof that this new miner submits duplicate shares? of course it does, besides it switches off the rig power supply to use preinstalled liquid antimatter source, no heat at all, just extreme radiation Too much radiation is bad. But if it can use radiation to transmit coins, then energy is saved.
|
|
|
|
Bananana
|
|
May 10, 2015, 06:52:57 AM |
|
What is with the quark mining so profitable all of sudden? Also anybody can share wolf0's program please .
|
|
|
|
bensam1231
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1024
|
|
May 10, 2015, 07:28:15 AM |
|
Why do you think only wolf can create optimized binaries? I think kachur can create it as kminer for monero. Isn't it possible?
Just want to point out Kachur made a very competitive Cryptonote miner with Claymore. He eventually stopped updating it and got banned for some reason. There was also some schenanagins about duplicated shares for a bit too.
|
I buy private Nvidia miners. Send information and/or inquiries to my PM box.
|
|
|
semajjames
|
|
May 10, 2015, 08:23:41 AM |
|
What is with the quark mining so profitable all of sudden? Also anybody can share wolf0's program please . as far as I know Wolf0 has not released any bin's for Quark and has not released a miner
|
|
|
|
|